Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the minority has had this amendment for a long time. Frankly, all it does is it takes the House bill, which would reimburse Billy Dale for his attorney's fees incurred in the criminal matter. Our amendment makes it clear that we are only reimbursing him for those attorney's fees, not for any congressional appearances; nor are we reimbursing anybody else for any congressional appearances. It clarifies and, I think, refines the bill so that it can be sent back to the House. I believe they will take that in an instant because there is a terrific injustice here. It is time to solve it. It got embroiled within the minimum wage debate. This is one of the reasons why many of us on our side agreed to go ahead with the minimum wage, which I believe the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and others on that side believe was a victory for them yesterday. I thought that once the minimum wage problem was solved, there would be absolutely nobody in this Chamber who would not want to resolve what is really a tremendous injustice to a person who has been treated very badly. I do not believe there is anybody here who would really object to this bill. Let me just say this. In the wake of this FBI matter, Mr. Dale and his colleagues have found themselves in the news once again. After trying to put the circumstances of their firings behind them, it was discovered that Mr. Dale's FBI file was requested by the White House Security Office after--let me repeat, after--he was fired--7 months after--and right before he was indicted. It appears that the Travel Office seven were not only fired unjustifiably, but in some cases their personal and private FBI background investigation files, or file summaries, were inappropriately requested and possibly reviewed. I find it outrageous--as I think most others do on both sides of the aisle--that the Clinton White House would have fired these public servants in such an insensitive and unfair manner and then improperly access private information on some of them--especially Mr. Dale. That is how this whole Filegate thing has arisen. When they found that long after they fired this man, and had done so inappropriately, and then intended to indict and prosecute him unjustly, they got these special secret files from the FBI on Billy Dale. Now, this just simply demonstrates the arrogance of power of some in the White House with regard to this matter. To hold this up any further, even for amendments, it seems to me is something that really anybody has to think about, because previous attempts to pass this measure were stalled by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, even though many of them told me they support the measure, including the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, who was the one who spoke up when we first brought this bill to the floor. First, Members on that side wanted to offer the GATT amendment. That was Senator Pryor. Then there was the minimum wage amendment. I thought once we solved the minimum wage issue, we would surely be able to bring this up and get it done. Now the Senate has dealt with both the GATT program and the minimum wage. And now I understand, if I heard correctly my colleague from South Dakota, that some of his colleagues have a desire to bring up additional unspecified amendments. Indeed, I have to say it was requested at the staff level that the Senate delay consideration of this legislation until Mr. Dale responds to some questions submitted to him at the Filegate hearing. Give me a break. It is beginning to look like some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to kill this bill more than anything else. I do not know of anybody who is willing to stand up and say that. But that is what it looks like. If there are legitimate germane amendments to the Billy Dale bill, I encourage my colleagues to produce them. Let us review them. My hope would be to work something out and pass this bill today. And I am willing to work with my colleagues and accommodate it. This is a bill with the support of both Republicans and Democrats alike in the House. Frankly, I fail to see any reason for holding up a measure that would simply remedy the injustice resulting from the Travel Office firings. Throughout the lengthy debate on this bill, we must not forget that the bill is about Billy Dale and the other Travel Office employees. It is a bill that would reimburse their legal expenses for defending themselves against an unjust criminal investigation and prosecution. Let me again explain unbelievable circumstances for their terminations. After years of faithful service to the Government, Mr. Dale and other Travel Office employees were fired on May 19, 1993. In an attempt to justify the firings of these loyal public servants who worked for both Democrats and Republicans in the White House, the current White House met with and urged the FBI to investigate the Travel Office. The allegations brought against the Travel Office employees were conducted by those who had a vested interest in running the office themselves. If being fired was not tragic enough, the Department of Justice launched a Federal criminal investigation against the Travel Office employees. As I have said, Mr. Dale was subsequently indicted, and despite the weakness of the case against him and after only 2 hours of jury deliberations he was acquitted. Because of this questionable use of the Federal criminal justice system, Mr. Dale was forced to spend $500,000 in legal fees. The other Travel Office employees collectively spent $200,000 in legal fees for their defense. And aside from the crushing financial burdens on these people, these individuals were also burdened and continue to be burdened with defending their reputations. The targeting of these dedicated public servants because they held positions coveted by political profiteers, I think, demands an appropriate response by this institution. And, although we can do absolutely nothing to restore their reputations, their dignity, and their faith in the White House, it is only just that the Congress do what it can do to rectify this wrong. By providing attorneys' fees we can at least financially make these Government employees whole--these innocent Government employees whole. That is why we are here. That is why we would like to do it. This bill will be a mere statement by Congress that there was clearly an arrogant abuse of power by White House officials against seven innocent employees in favor of some close to the President who stood to gain financially. It is one thing for the President to exercise his prerogative and dismiss them, it is another to do so and then concoct an investigation to justify dismissing them. And we should all be embarrassed by the way our Government treated these seven Travel Office employees, and we should make up for it by passing this measure today. One last thing: The President himself indicated that he would sign this bill. He knows that it was an injustice. I give him credit for that. And, frankly, it was his White House that caused these tragedies. And he is willing to sign the bill. There are other bills that the amendments can be added to that are nongermane. If there is something that is germane to this bill, bring it up. We will bring it up now. We will solve those problems. But we will right this tremendous injustice and wrong. And this is the time to do it. I am hoping that my colleague, the distinguished minority leader of the Senate, will recognize this. I hope that he can get the folks on his side to cooperate and get this measure passed once and for all and then let us go to battle on these other future issues at a later time. On this one I do not think there is that much opposition among anybody on the Senate floor. At least I have never heard one ounce of opposition to this bill to right these wrongs.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I think we agree that any increases in the minimum wage should be a factor in Medicaid reimbursements. I thank my colleague for this clarification.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the tax provisions included in H.R. 3448, the bill now before us. These provisions are important, not only to small businesses, but to almost every American business. And, I am one who believes, Mr. President, that simplifying and lessening the tax burden faced by American entrepreneurs--both small and large--will have substantial benefits for workers as well. Unfortunately, the detriments of the minimum wage increase, which is also included in this bill, outweigh the benefits of the tax provisions in this bill. Mr. President, H.R. 3448 has much to recommend it. For example, I am pleased to see that the bill increases the amount of newly purchased equipment that a small business can expense from the current $17,500 to $25,000. This change will make it easier for these enterprises to afford to invest in new equipment. This will help not only small businesses but also those larger companies that supply equipment to them and will thus have a multiplier effect on the economy. Moreover, increasing the expensing allowance will decrease the recordkeeping burden these companies face. This bill also goes a long way toward reforming the tax treatment of S corporations. My colleague and friend from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, and I have long been advocating the need for S corporation reform. While this bill does not contain all of the reform measures that we introduced in our S. 758, the S Corporation Reform Act, it certainly is a very good step in the right direction. Many of my colleagues may not realize it, Mr. President, but there are nearly 2 million S corporations in the United States, most of them small businesses. These reform provisions are designed to ease their tax compliance burden and to increase these companies' access to capital. Another very good set of provisions included in this bill is that dealing with pension simplification. All of us are aware, I think, of the special problems that small businesses face in providing pension benefits to their employees. It is no accident that fewer than 20 percent of the employees of small businesses are covered by a pension plan. The problem is twofold, Mr. President. First, many small businesses are afraid to commit to providing a certain percentage of their payroll every year to funding a pension or profit sharing plan. It's not that these businesses are stingy with their employees. Rather, many of them are operating on such thin cash flow margins that they are hesitant to add to their overhead and possibly overcommit their already strained resources. The second problem is probably even more widespread among small enterprises. This problem is that setting up and administering a pension plan is a very costly undertaking. Let's face it, Mr. President. Most small businesses in America are already struggling to keep up with the myriad rules and regulations that are piled on them by Federal, State, and local governments. The last thing they need is to have to learn and comply with the mind-numbing regulations governing pension plans contained in the Internal Revenue Code. Even hardened tax veterans admit that these rules are almost beyond comprehension for them. How is a small business man or woman supposed to master them? The alternative is paying big dollars for a specialist to administer the plan, again stretching the small firm's tight resources. This bill deals with both of these problems by providing for a new type of pension plan that allows small employers to sponsor pension plans with low employer contributions. It gives the business the flexibility to contribute a higher percentage of employee compensation in good years or to contribute as low as 1 percent in difficult years. At the same time, however, employees are given the benefits of tax favored treatment on both their own contributions and those of the employer. Moreover, Mr. President, H.R. 3448 simplifies the onerous compliance burden that now accompanies pension plan sponsorship. These rules are designed to take away the worst of the compliance headaches that are now keeping many businesses from offering pension plans to their employees. All in all, the pension reform provisions in this bill should go a long way toward increasing the retirement security of the millions of Americans who work for small businesses. Let me mention one other very important section of the tax bill now before the Senate. This bill temporarily extends a number of tax provisions that Congress has allowed to expire. These include the research and experimentation credit, the work opportunity tax credit, the orphan drug tax credit, and the tax credit for producing fuel from a nonconventional source. It is important to note, Mr. President, that these so-called extenders are important for small, medium, and large businesses alike. There are thousands of businesses in my home State of Utah, and millions across the Nation, that will find the extension of these provisions important in helping them to grow and create jobs in the future. But, as much as I like the tax title of this bill, Mr. President, I have to say that it is far from perfect. Let me just briefly outline what I see as its greatest deficiencies. As my colleagues know, the only reason we are voting on a tax bill today is because of the increase in the minimum wage that is also included in H.R. 3448. I believe strongly that mandatory increases in labor costs create any number of problems for both small businesses and workers. I will discuss those in a moment. The House of Representatives recognized the added burden placed on small businesses in particular and attached the small business tax provisions to the minimum wage bill in order to help alleviate some of the harsh results that the minimum wage increase will have on small enterprises. One harsh result that will come from a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage is the loss of jobs. According to CBO, it is estimated that increasing the minimum wage will mean that as many as 500,000 jobs will either be lost or not created. Yet, as beneficial as these tax provisions are, and they will have an indirect benefit to job creation, they are not designed to be big job generators. I would have liked to see provisions that would have at least offset the job losses that will result from the minimum wage hike. The best thing we could include in a bill designed to overcome the disemployment effect of the minimum wage increase is a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Such a change would unleash a significant portion of the estimated $8 trillion in unrealized capital gains that is out there in our economy. If we could free up only 10 percent of this mountain of capital--or $800 billion--the job creation that would result would overshadow the loss of jobs that will result from increasing the minimum wage. Don't get me wrong, Mr. President. The tax measures in this bill are positive provisions that will assist small businesses. They don't, however, have the job creation power that a capital gains tax cut has. So, if the Senate were really serious about helping workers or those who cannot find a job, we would concentrate our efforts on improving opportunities for those who may be unemployed or underemployed. The best way to do this is by expanding the availability of capital needed to create these opportunities. I am also concerned about the way that this bill extends the expired tax provisions. Ideally, Congress should find a way to make these provisions permanent. The continual expiration and reinstatement of these provisions leads to taxpayer skepticism about our tax laws and greatly reduces the effectiveness of the provisions. This is particularly true of the research and experimentation credit. The bill before us today does include an extension of the research credit, but only on a prospective basis from July 1, 1996. Therefore, the bill leaves a year-long gap, from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996, in which the research credit is not in effect. The research credit has been a part of the Internal Revenue Code since 1981, but only as a temporary measure. It has been allowed to expire seven times, counting the most recent expiration on June 30, 1995. Each of the times that the bill expired before this last expiration, Congress has extended the bill on a retroactive basis. Thus, even though Congress often did not act until after the research credit had expired, it has always, until this bill, gone back and made the credit effective from the date of expiration. The seamless extension of the research credit is important because the businesses that have counted on the credit as an incentive to increase their research activities will now find that the credit is not available for an entire year. Many of these companies based their research plans on the availability of the credit. Why shouldn't they count on it being there? After all, Congress had never left a gap in its extensions of the credit before. The bill before us, however, breaks this faith and sets a very poor precedent. This gap, along with the temporary nature of the credit, will greatly reduce the effectiveness of this credit, Mr. President. I hope that this problem can be corrected in conference. Finally, Mr. President, let me briefly mention another flaw of this bill. In the name of closing a perceived corporate tax loophole, H.R. 3448 dramatically reduces the benefits available to companies doing business in Puerto Rico under section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code. We could debate the merits and perceived abuses of section 936 all day. I simply want to point out to my colleagues that the focus of attention on this issue has been far too concentrated on a few companies that have reportedly reaped rich benefits from the section 936 credit, and far too little on the people of Puerto Rico, who have been able to pull themselves out of dire economic circumstances over the past few decades, largely as a result of the credit. I believe that Congress is being shortsighted in gutting section 936, Mr. President. Without the jobs that section 936 companies bring to the island of Puerto Rico, many U.S. citizens will find themselves in economic difficulties. Congress will likely spend more money in increased transfer payments through higher welfare benefits and unemployment benefits than will be saved through the tax changes included in this bill. At a minimum, we should ensure that Puerto Rico has a permanent incentive to attract new jobs to the commonwealth. So, Mr. President, I am disappointed in the overall small business tax package. I favor its provisions, but I believe they should be stronger. The potential positive impact could be so much greater. My views on increasing the minimum wage are well known. I have long believed that raising the statutory minimum wage merely raises the rungs on the ladder of opportunity. I am also well aware of the opinion polls that show that a substantial majority of the American people believe that a raise in the minimum wage is a good idea. Many believe that this is a quick, painless way to help the disadvantaged in our society; many believe that a minimum wage hike is costless; and many believe that it has no adverse impact. I can only suggest that the people have not been given all the facts about this proposal. I wonder, for example, if the people realize that even the most optimistic estimate puts job loss at 100,000 entry level jobs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the loss of 100,000 to 500,000 jobs given a 21 percent increase in the minimum wage. Other estimates are higher. While there are always dissenters, there are few public policy issues on which there is such an overwhelming consensus among economists. Three-quarters of the members of the American Economic Association agree that minimum wage hikes have a disemployment effect that stifles employment opportunities for low-skilled workers. This position is summed up by William Baumol and Alan Blinder, who was a Clinton appointee to the Federal Reserve Board: ``The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an increase in the incomes of the least skilled workers, but a restriction on their employment opportunities.'' The long and the short of it is simply that you cannot mandate an increase in the price of entry level or unskilled labor--which is exactly what the statutory minimum wage is--without reducing the demand for that labor. It is true that some workers will reap the benefit of the increase. But, by mandating wage increases we are going to destroy job opportunities for many others. Let me put it another way: Some workers will get a $36 a week raise. Potentially half a million workers won't have a job at all. I hope my colleagues do not break their arms patting themselves on the back for such benevolence. Now, let us look at the demographics of who would be helped and who would be hurt by the loss of job opportunities. There are more adult minimum wage earners in families earning $30,000 per year than in families earning less than $10,000 per year. Forty percent of all minimum wage earners are teenagers and young adults living at home. They are not heads of household. A majority of minimum wage earners live in families in which they are not the principal breadwinner. Only about a quarter of all minimum wage earners are heads of household. The fact is that there is no way to target the benefit--to the extent there is one--only to those who are heads of households or working poor. The reality is that those who are not poor are more likely to get raises and those whose skills do not justify the higher wage will be out of jobs. Study after study has concluded that raising the minimum wage is an ineffective means of helping those who are disadvantaged. Kevin Lang, professor of economics at Boston University, has stated that ``Low-skilled adults in states that raised their minimum wage were often crowded out of the job market by teens and students.'' Peter Brandon, of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin has found that ``welfare mothers in states that raised their minimum wage remained on public assistance 44 percent longer than their peers in states where the minimum wage remained unchanged.'' If there was ever an issue for which the benefits were swamped by the downsides, this is it. And, those who we intend to help are exactly those who are most likely to be hurt. Yes, Mr. President, raising the minimum wage sounds like an easy way to help those who are working but still struggling to find their way out of poverty. It is no wonder that, lacking the facts, the American people would support this. Frankly, if I thought it would do what my friend Senator Kennedy says it will do, I would support it myself. If I believed we could improve the standard of living for all Americans by governmental fiat, I would be joining the Senator from Massachusetts on the other side of the aisle. Who would not want to stamp out poverty with the stroke of a pen? But, things just do not work that way. It is not that easy. The idea that there is no adverse impact from a mandatory increase in the cost of hiring workers is delusional. And, what's worse, this adverse impact is for nothing. This legislation will not be the economic salvation of minimum wage earners. Even for a minimum wage worker lucky enough to benefit from it, it will provide a $36 a week raise. It will take about $7.10 an hour to produce an income equal to the poverty level for a family of four. But, proponents will not suggest raising the wage to that level. Why? Because they know the consequences. This proposal to increase the minimum wage, like the emperor who has no clothes, is spurious. And, someone has to tell the truth. The American people deserve to know all the facts about this minimum wage hike. We have a lot of work to do yet during this Congress. It is disappointing that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become Johnny one-notes with respect to the minimum wage and have offered it to virtually every bill we have debated since mid-March. Is this the only idea they have to offer? It would certainly seem so. Let us get down to business on some proposals that will help working men and women--like tax cuts, a balanced budget, regulatory reform. Let us get the economy moving. Let us create new jobs and new opportunities, not jeopardize the ones we have.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to ask the bill's proponents about one serious ramification of a minimum wage increase, that is, the effect this increase will have on the Medicaid Program. Almost one-half of Medicaid dollars are spent in long-term care, primarily for the elderly. It stands to reason that an increase in the minimum wage will affect all health care providers, including those who are providing care under Medicaid. Nursing homes are large employers of minimum wage workers. They employ significant numbers of nurse aids, orderlies, food service, and housekeeping staff who all contribute to the care of nursing home patients. Labor costs account for about 60 percent of all nursing home costs. However, unlike other businesses, the nursing home industry is unable to reduce its staff. The level of care that is required both by internal quality standards and by Federal regulations means that nursing home staff, particularly those individuals who are directly providing patient care, cannot be reduced. In short, nursing homes are caught in a catch-22. They cannot adjust the size or configuration of their staffs; so they suffer a significant increase in labor costs. Yet, unless the minimum wage increase is taken into account in determining Medicaid reimbursement rates, nursing homes cannot recover any of the increase. So, unlike any other business, which can either reduce its number of workers or pass the increased costs on to consumers, nursing homes are simply left to absorb it. I am very concerned that this will have a serious adverse impact on our nursing homes both in the short- and long-run. In our country, we need to be able to depend on these facilities to provide quality care for our frail elderly and infirm population. Does the Senator from Massachusetts agree with me that the Fair Labor Standards Act should be a factor in determining nursing home reimbursements under Medicaid?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of the TEAM Act. I commend Senator Kassebaum, chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, for bringing this bill out of committee and making it a high priority. I think it is useful to begin with a review of why this legislation is necessary. Because the idea of employer-employee communication and cooperation seems so fundamental, it is astonishing to some people that this measure must be debated at all let alone the fact that it is so controversial. In 1992, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in the Electromation case which held that employer-employee committees to discuss workplace procedures and policies violated the National Labor Relations Act. As a former union member, I understand full well the NLRA's prohibition on so-called company unions. But, the Board's decision in Electromation, which defines a ``quality circle'' or ``child care center feasibility committee'' or other form of employee-employer committee as a company union, misses the mark entirely. It simply cannot be claimed at the NLRA was intended to outlaw every type of employee-employer input mechanism. To state otherwise is to advocate that workers can communicate with employers only through unions. Since when does the U.S. Government impose that kind of gag rule on American workers? I can hardly believe that my colleagues on the other side are going along with this twisted interpretation of labor law. But, I suppose $35 million from the AFL-CIO could be a powerful incentive to grant organized labor such a special privilege at the expense of the rank and file. The TEAM Act does not--does not--authorize any employee committee or cooperative organization to engage in collective bargaining. The TEAM Act does not--does not-affect any employee's right to join a union. It should be noted that the TEAM Act applies to nonunion employers. So, what are some of the horrible things that employee-employer committees are barred from discussing? It is illegal under Electromation from discussing free coffee for employees. It is illegal to discuss the possibility of providing a soda machine, microwave, or other furnishings for the employee lounge. It is illegal to discuss tornado warning procedures or rules about fighting. It is illegal to discuss a ban on radios or the use of video game machines. It is illegal to discuss rules about posters, drug and alcohol testing, dress codes, or a smelly propane buffer. It is illegal to discuss sponsoring a company softball team. I cannot believe that there is a single Senator who would defend such obstruction to cooperation and employee input in decisionmaking. And, it seems pretty incongruous to me that an American institution that claims to want to give workers a louder voice in their workplaces is leading the opposition. It seems as if organized labor is afraid of empowering workers. It seems that organized labor does not want workers to have their own voice. It seems that organized labor not only does not condone employers who seek out workers' opinions on workplace issues, but also demands that such openness continue to be punished by law. Mr. President, there is really very little more to say about this measure. The TEAM Act, which would repair this ridiculous interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act, is a good, commonsense bill. Once again, I want to extend my appreciation to Senator Kassebaum for her leadership on this issue. As one who has walked a mile in her moccasins, I know just how confounding any change in labor policy can be. I mean, good grief, the dollar threshold for the Davis-Bacon Act has not been raised since 1931. I urge all my colleagues to support this measure. And, I call on President Clinton to sign it into law.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when Alexandr Lebed called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ``mold and scum'' he attacked my faith. Russia's new security chief--the man who stands behind Boris Yeltsin--attacked the faith of America's 6th largest church. I believe this requires an immediate and forceful response, and my colleagues and I have drafted a letter to Boris Yeltsin, Ambassador Vorontsov and Secretary of State Christopher. In his campaign comments yesterday, Lebed struck the nationalist chord. He spoke of the ``officially recognized'' faiths of ``Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism.'' There is no mention of Russia's Jews, and that concerns me greatly. The Mormon faith is a ``security threat'' to Russia, according to Lebed. It is comparable to the Japanese cult that unleashed poison gas on Tokyo last year. Comparing the Christian faith of the Mormons to a murderous cult led by a deranged individual is a calumny. Referring to the Mormons as a security threat appears to be anti-democratic demoguogery reminiscent of communist propoganda. Remember that, in the old days of communist propaganda, the Russian people were kept in ignorance and fear with official myths of fabricated foreign threats. Remember that, in the old days of the communist regime, the totalitarian state disguised itself as a paternalistic state that denied all individual rights, including the freedom of religious practice. We shouldn't be surprised, after all. Lebed has taken his outrageous rhetoric right out of the resurgent communist party's playbook. This bodes ill for democratic evolution in Russia. I think Mormons should be insulted, and I am declaring my outrage here. I think Jews should be concerned, and I am declaring my complete support for Russian Jews here. And I think the Russian people should be insulted. I have too much respect for the character, strength, and, yes, the spirit of the Russian people to think that they need to be patronized by threats of religious persecution. I will continue to support democratic evolution in Russia. And I think that this evolution demands respect for all human rights-- including the right to freedom of religion. I have expressed this in a letter I have drafted to President Yeltsin and Ambassador Vorontsov, and I am grateful that my colleagues here have co-signed it. I am also happy to sign the letter Senator Bennett has drafted to Secretary of State Christopher. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record. I now call on Alexandr Lebed to apologize, and to demonstrate that he has no intention of repeating his threats to freedom of religion in Russia. The future of democratic Russia depends on the preservation of this freedom.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. HATCH. That is correct.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. With regard to my amendment, which is the text of the Judiciary Committee bill, the court would consider expenses related to the generic drug application and other activities, such as plant construction and equipment purchases, made specifically in connection with particular generic drugs. Our compromise would prevent applicants from gaming the system by precluding approval of applications submitted for products that come off-patent beyond 1998. Also, at the suggestion of Senator Biden, we have included language that would make clear that pioneer drug patents could receive both the restoration extension afforded by the Hatch-Waxman Act and any additional time received under the URAA. This is only fair, because these extensions derive from separate statutory sources. Mr. President, I have worked long and hard on this issue and have endeavored to find a reasonable middle ground which will accommodate the interest of all my colleagues. The Judiciary bill is a good compromise, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. Evidence of plant construction, equipment, and the like are exactly the type of qualifying activities that the Judiciary bill contemplates.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague. I have been debating with our fellow Senators here for 20 years, and I have to say that no one has worked me over with greater regularity, or in a nicer way and with greater decency, than my dear friend from Arkansas. I do not think anybody in this body is going to miss him any more than I. This has been a very difficult debate. The Senator from Arkansas is very sincere. He believes in what he is doing. He made arguments that I know he believed. I want everybody to know that I am very sincere, too. I really believe in this GATT treaty. My Committee has jurisdiction over patent, copyright, and trademark issues and I have worked with these issues during my whole Senate career. I believe this is a tremendously important issue. Although my colleague and I differ here today--and I feel badly that my colleague feels badly--I know that nobody could have put up a more noble or hard fight than he did. I hope that this is now resolved. There are two good sides to this issue. Senator Pryor is trying to help consumers. I am trying to help consumers. We have people on the outside trying to malign both of us, and both of us are trying to do our jobs in the Senate. We just happen to disagree on how it should be done. I respect my colleague from Arkansas. I also want to pay particular tribute to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who has worked long and hard to try and make the agreement that came out of the Judiciary Committee one that would function and work. I pay tribute to my distinguished ranking Democrat leader on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, who, I think, made a real difference on this matter with the suggestions he made. Last but not least, Senator Heflin played a significant role in this, as has Senator Thurmond, and others. I will not take any more time of the Senate. I want everybody to know that I appreciate those who voted with us, and I respect those who voted against us--especially my dear friend from Arkansas.

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. I have heard the arguments of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas over and over. I know he is sincere. I know he means well. But his arguments fixate on one or two companies. If you were to look at this in the context of all of the companies, the thousands of companies, that benefited from the GATT Treaty, it reduces his arguments to nothing. If you look at the companies from Arkansas that benefited from the GATT Treaty, you have to ask why they should receive a benefit that others did not? It is because they had to draw the line somewhere. The simple truth is that there were some who won and some who did not. The thrust of my colleague's argument is that consumers are spending exorbitant amounts of money for Zantac because one company, Glaxo, has had its patent expanded under the GATT Treaty. It does not matter if Glaxo or any other company benefited under this treaty. The important thing is that treaty be preserved. It took decades to bring this treaty about. It is a treaty with important intellectual property provisions, provisions important for the whole world. We have taken decades to get other nations to sign on to this treaty, many of which did not want to. Some of them would like nothing better than to undermine this treaty. If the United States, pursuant to the Pryor amendment, were to adopt this language and undermine this treaty, right off the bat, I think it would send the wrong message to all the nations which would like an excuse to undermine the treaty anyway. If we uphold the treaty, then, it seems to me in the long run we will save trillions of dollars for the consumers, compared to the relatively few millions the Senator is complaining about. In the short run, consumers are going to pay more for some products under the treaty, because thousands of patents for all sorts of products and technologies were extended. Let us just be honest about it. There is a lot riding here. The overall goal of keeping the URAA intact outweighs the concerns of any one of us that one company or another may benefit somewhat from this. The fact of the matter is, there are a number of companies that benefit from this. It is also important to note that, under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the generic industry gets something that no other industry gets. They can infringe the pharmaceutical pioneer companies' patents like no other industry can. We included that provision in the best interests of bringing pioneer drugs off patent into the marketplace as quickly as we could. I am proud of that Waxman-Hatch Act. I worked my guts out to have it come to fruition. It was negotiated, every word of it, right in my office. It saved consumers billions and billions of dollars. If we turn around now, just because, as the Senator argues, one or two or even eight out of a million companies may have benefited, we will undermine the very GATT Treaty that we fought so hard to get. That will be a mistake. This is not some insignificant battle between two good people here in the U.S. Senate. This is a very, very important set of legal principles, legislative principles, treaty principles, and intellectual property principles. Frankly, the arguments are not as the distinguished Senator would portray. At this point I would like insert in the record some examples of patents which were extended in Arkansas. I would also like to insert a statement by former Senator and Trade Representative Brock, who rebuts the arguments that former Ambassador, now Secretary Kantor says. And, finally, I would like to insert the letter from Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States. I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would feel much more confident in the distinguished Senator from Arkansas's comments if he were willing to turn back all of the GATT blessings that Arkansas received. I have a list here which gives some of the examples of extensions made under GATT and the number of days. Here are 25 Arkansas companies which received extensions, one of which had its patent extended as by 713 days, another by 667 days, another by 665. The Jacuzzi Brothers had a patent extended by 218 days. None of their competitors has come to us and complained that they are being cheated. I might ask why we aren't suggesting that all those companies give back the extensions they received? Because there were winners and losers in the GATT. Unfortunately, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas does not happen to agree with some of the winners. Mr. President, what you have heard this afternoon from our colleague, Senator Pryor, admittedly is a compelling populist argument that will have a great deal of surface appeal to some people. Who among us would not want to lower the price of drugs used by the elderly? Who would not want to correct a mistake? Who would not want to level the playing field to promote fairness between two very important segments of a very important industry? Unfortunately, none of these arguments are accurate. All of them are built on a foundation of sand. With one strong wave of reality this dream castle will come crashing down and we will be left with the truth of the matter. The truth is that: There is no loophole; There is no technical error; and And there is no need for the over-reaching Pryor/Brown/Chafee amendment. Let me give you the facts. It should be no secret to anyone in this body that GATT extended the terms of patents. The GATT Treaty--a very important treaty that took decades to get--was debated extensively in open session. It was negotiated for a period of years, extending through three Presidential Administrations. It was one of the most talked-about pieces of legislation we have considered. As a consequence of the GATT, the terms of about 1 million patents were extended. I just mentioned 25 of those were in Arkansas. They came from virtually every type of industry in the United States, including pioneer pharmaceutical patents. From this debate, you would think that only pharmaceutical patents were extended, but that is far from true. In truth, only about 100 pharmaceutical patents were extended--100 out of 1 million--100 patents out of 1 million. Today you will hear the argument that this issue is a simple case of Congress making an oversight in a piece of complex legislation. Again, that is not correct. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration has said as much. In black and white. Last May, the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Policy said: (T)his apparently is not an example of Congress having overlooked a statutory provision it might have changed had it been aware of its existence . . . So, it is clear that both the executive and legislative branches acknowledge this was not an oversight, even though we hear that over and over again. But, if the FDA statement were not enough of an argument for you, consider that the courts have also reviewed this issue and have concurred that there is no evidence that this was an oversight. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit noted last November in the Royce case that it could not find any definitive evidence on the question of intent. The court said: The parties have not pointed to, and we have not discovered, any legislative history on the intent of Congress, at the time of passage of the URAA, regarding the interplay between the URAA and the Hatch-Waxman Act. By the way, I coauthored the Hatch-Waxman Act, and I do understand it. When Senator Pryor's glitzy, diversionary charts are put aside, it seems to me that my opponents must concede that they have no hard evidence that this is simply a case of legislative mistake. It is not. And by the way, those charts, as much as they are curly-cued to death are misleading. Every generic patentee must go through the process on that chart, under the URAA. It is not just a process set up for generic drugs. Do not let their attempts at a revisionist history fool you. As the Federal circuit correctly noted, the true test of legislative history is what was stated when the bill passed, not what some are trying to say now, after the fact. You will also hear today that the Congress should adopt the Pryor amendment so that generic drug manufacturers have the same protections afforded to every other generic product manufacturer under the transition rules. This is the so-called level-the-playing-field argument. The truth of the matter is that there are no reported cases of any generic manufacturer, including those 25 in Arkansas, for any other industry reaching--or for that matter even seeking to reach--the marketplace through these transition rules. It is important for all involved in this debate to understand that under these transition rules, generic drugs have not been treated differently than any other generic products. Not one individual in this body can point to any other industry except generic drugs which has used, or even attempted to use the transition rules. In other words, out of the 1 million patents extended, not one other industry, or for that matter not one person from one other industry, has attempted to use the transition rules. The playing field is level. In fact, the generic drug industry is actually trying to tilt the playing field in its favor. It may surprise some in this body to see what the generic drug industry has been arguing in court. Let me just read to you for a few moments from a transcript of the oral argument at the Federal circuit last October in the Royce case: Milton Bass, a lawyer for the generic drug industry, said: I suggest to this court that this statute in one respect is written expressly for generic drugs and in the other respect primarily for generic drugs. Judge Bryson: You think the URAA was written expressly for generic drugs? Mr. Bass: Absolutely, and I'll tell you why . . . I can't think of a single act that was not infringing before June 8 that became infringing after June 8 except for the generic drug industry. . . With other patents, a company is limited in what they can spend their money for to invest before the patent expires. Because if they use the patent, that's an act of infringement. So we have the generic drug industry lawyer actually arguing that the transition rule was specifically intended for just this one industry. That hardly sounds like a level playing field argument to me. That sounds to me like an argument for special treatment. And this apparently was not just one of those statements that inadvertently slip out during the pressure of the moment in oral argument. The same argument was repeated by the generic company's lawyer in his petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The generic drug company attorney stated to the Supreme Court: The most obvious intended beneficiary of the statutory licensing system was the generic drug industry . . . In fact, since the adoption of TRIPS and the URAA no industry other than the generic drug industry has emerged as being potentially affected by the equitable remuneration system. So there you have it: plain evidence that contrary to what our colleague will allege, the generic drug industry wants to tilt the playing field toward itself. Frankly, the Pryor amendment is nothing more than an attempt to see that one industry, the generic drug industry, gains a special, widespread, wholesale benefit that no other type of generic manufacturer will ever likely get under the transition rules. And why is this so harmful? As much as we all sympathize with the goal of getting lower priced generic drugs to the American consumer--particularly our elderly living on fixed incomes, we must not act in a fashion that undermines the incentives to invest in biomedical research. We want both new breakthrough therapies and cheap generic equivalents. The issue is how best to satisfy both ends. Over the years I have enjoyed working with Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the United States. I stood behind Dr. Koop when many in this body were anxious to prevent him from becoming Surgeon General. Time has proven that Dr. Koop is one of the world's leading public health authorities. I respect and value his opinion. I believe that the American people know that Dr. Koop is a man of integrity and speaks his mind. Dr. Koop wrote me a letter last week which shows just how important it is to retain incentives for biomedical research. He said: Because of my long-standing concerns about the effect on biomedical research of weakened patent protection, I have been following the efforts in the Senate to roll back the advances in intellectual property protection established by the GATT amendment. The right to claim ideas as property allows innovators in any discipline to invest time and money to bring those ideas to fruition. This is especially true in the pharmaceutical industry, where each new medicine requires an average investment of 12 years and $350-500 million. Stronger patent protection bolsters the incentives for these high-risk investments, and thus represents a significant leap forward in our effort to preserve and improve the nation's health. It is for this reason that I submitted testimony to the Judiciary Committee opposing legislation to roll back the GATT intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals. I think that Dr. Koop is focusing attention on the right issue when he points out the importance that strong intellectual property laws have on biomedical research. Frankly, a strong case can be made by those who argue that it is unnecessary to make any changes in our current statutory framework. But in the spirit of compromise the Judiciary Committee passed on a 10-7 bipartisan vote compromise legislation on this issue, to which Senator Specter is referring. The Judiciary compromise is the text of the amendment I offer today, with small-but-important modification suggested by Senator Specter last week which will ensure that the process envisioned in the Judiciary bill is a speedy one. The Judiciary compromise is a responsible, reasonable alternative. It allows generic drug products to reach the marketplace before the expiration of the GATT-extended patents. The difference between my approach and that of Senator Pryor is that the Judiciary bill protects intellectual property by precluding the generic's entry into the marketplace until a court has decided that a substantial investment has been made. As with the Pryor approach, the manufacturer must demonstrate that it has made a substantial investment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the amendment rationalizes section 366, which provides for Defense Department support for major sporting events hosted in the United States. Since the DOD authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 was reported from the Armed Services Committee last month, there has been much attention given to the need to create a strong terrorism deterrent at the forthcoming Olympic games in Atlanta. I appreciate the concerns expressed and raised by my good friend, Senator McCain, and deeply respected his views throughout this process, although we disagreed on the language that was incorporated into the committee reported version of this bill. But, because we shared the same goal, it was only a matter of agreeing upon the means to that end, which this amendment represents. I, especially, want to thank Senators Nunn, Breaux, Craig, Coverdell, and Moseley-Braun; they were leaders among the nearly 65 Senators who joined in the effort to make certain that the Atlanta Olympic games-- and all other future sporting events held in this country--would be events that all spectators, American citizens as well as foreign visitors, could attend with an optimal sense of security. We are not just talking about high-visibility Olympic events, but other mass sporting activities which draw international attention--and, therefore, terrorist interest--like super bowls, goodwill and Pan-American games, special and paralympics, and world cups, among others. I, particularly, want to thank my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. His input and initiative on this issue were key. The amendment we are adopting to this bill today reinforces the message sent by my good friend and ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden, who, in a June 11 hearing on Olympic security, warned prospective purveyors of harm to the Atlanta games, not even to think about it. In fact, as we have learned from the Judiciary Committee hearing, as well as a recent CNN series on Olympic security, unprecedented security and safety capabilities are being put in place. In a few words, Madam President, we have taken every imaginable precaution to ensure the security and safety of the 2 million visitors, 40,000 other members of the Olympic family, visiting dignitaries from more than 190 countries, and the Atlanta community. As the Olympic torch winds its way across country, and having just seen it pass through the streets of Washington to the White House lawn, we have seen an outpouring of public support for the summer games that is both refreshing and exciting. The Olympic flame encourages all of us to focus on teamwork and competition instead of conflict and strife. I urge you to listen to composer and Maestro John Williams' rendition of the Atlanta Olympic games' musical theme: Summon the Heroes. It is a rousing, patriotic musical restatement of our national pride. It's already a hit with the summer Boston Pops' Esplanade Concert series. Nothing, Madam President, I repeat nothing, should derail what could be the greatest Olympic event in modern history. In fact, I believe that our country should give nothing less to the world. The Atlanta games are also America's games, said Vice President Gore on May 14, 1996. He added that the Federal Government must run the only leg that it can: Assuring security. Madam President, of course, the Olympic spirit could be extinguished in a second should an individual or group decide to turn international attention to a radical cause. It is incumbent on us to take steps to prevent such a calamity. And, it is a possibility that is all too real given the tragic incident at the 1972 Olympic games. This amendment will contribute constructively to this colossal security and safety effort. I will deal categorically with the two important topics of this amendment: Security and financial considerations. There are four points this amendment makes regarding essential security and safety: First, the United States is setting a new American security standard which, I believe, is necessary. This standard is rooted in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which passed this body by a 91 to 8 vote, and was signed into law by President Clinton last month. The spirit of that law is embodied in this amendment: That our commitment to security has no partisan fences. All future major sporting events will enjoy the best security arrangements this country can bring forward. In Judiciary Committee hearings on June 11, Israeli antiterrorism expert, Prof. Ariel Mercari of Tel Aviv University, warned that terrorists seek out mass events to convey an ugly political message. This amendment facilitates cooperation between law enforcement officials and DOD, and creates a strong security deterrent for such games as the Atlanta and Salt Lake Olympics, the World Masters games in Portland, and the Goodwill games in New York City, both in 1998, and the Special Olympics to be held in Raleigh, in 1999, as well as the 1999 Women's World Cup, for which such cities as Boston, Orlando, Miami, Birmingham, Washington, and Pasadena are likely to compete this year. Second, the amendment fosters the type of systematic, coordinated and comprehensive effort needed across the entire law enforcement, security, and safety community to control all forms of terrorism, whether they originate from domestic or international sources. By inserting a requirement for the Attorney General to validate all essential security requests from Federal, State, and local officials, DOD support will be entirely consistent with current law regarding the use of military personnel and equipment. Third, the amendment provides an unprecedented capability to deal with modern security threats. The memory of the Munich massacre was a common thread in the drafting of this amendment. The United States commitments to several international conventions and treaties, calling for the protection of athletes and other foreign visitors, have been codified into law at title 18, United States Code, sections 112(f), 1116(d) and 1201(f). These statutes have been strengthened, the net effect of which is the creation of a deterrent to terrorism and other criminal behavior so potent that only the most reckless persons would risk wrongdoing--but it is this type of activity that we are nonetheless prepared to prevent. The changing nature of terrorism compels this amendment. As the Justice Department and FBI witnesses warned us at our June 11 Judiciary hearing: it is a changing world, security arrangements made for Los Angeles are simply insufficient for Atlanta. Atlanta is unique. The needs cannot be met by the total law enforcement community in the State of Georgia. The fourth security need addressed by the amendment clarifies the collection of Federal statutes that embody the legal basis for DOD support. Public safety remains a governmental responsibility. The amendment avoids the risk of abdicating security to a private organization which could be obligated to pay for essential security and safety support. In such an event, the temptation to cut corners is too great. This was a fear expressed by the Justice Department. Limitations on the use of military personnel and equipment for sporting event support are brought into conformance with existing laws. Most notably, the posse comitatus statutes, found at sections 375 to 377 of title 10, United States Code, are applied with full force. Military preparedness will not be sacrificed, and the restrictions on military personnel performing such law enforcement activities as search, seizure and arrest are explicitly applied. Madam President, let me now turn to the parallel concern of many members of Congress and citizens: the appropriate use of military personnel. We all honor the service of our military people. They should not be conscripted into service as servants, chauffeurs, launderers, waiters and waitresses, and other demeaning uses--and they assuredly will not. This type of misuse of our armed forces has been averted by a rigorous requirement that services, other than essential security and safety, be agreed to by the Secretary of Defense, and where agreed upon, be subject to reimbursement in accordance with section 377 of title 10. Lastly, Madam President, the amendment avoids last-minute rule changes that could have totally disrupted Olympic host entity planning by creating financial obligations that were unforeseen, such as the reimbursement for essential security and safety, and that could have spelled financial ruin and organizational chaos for an event. Madam President, I encourage the members of this Chamber to provide the same hearty endorsement of this amendment that they gave to the recent antiterrorism bill. An overwhelming vote of support will convey a message to the entire world that the United States intends to honor, fulfill and vigorously prosecute its responsibilities as a global leader in the crusade against threats. Again, my thanks to my colleagues for their assistance and support of this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senate for its swift action in passing H.R. 3525, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996. This bill strengthens the commitment and ability of the American people and the Federal Government to protect two of our most sacred principles--religious liberty and the equality of all Americans, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. America as a great haven, where individuals could openly acknowledge and freely practice their faith, whatever that faith may be, is a concept even older than the United States itself. Throughout its history, this great land, which came to be the United States of America, has been the destination of individuals from every corner of the globe seeking freedom from religious persecution. Freedom of religion is the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty and tolerance are at the heart of our being as a nation. As a result, an attack on a house of worship is more than damage or destruction to a building; it is an attack on religious liberty itself, and thus an attack on America. Such crimes are a matter for grave concern for Americans of all religious faiths. As a member of a minority religious faith, whose leader was murdered in Illinois in 1844; whose adherents were hounded, harassed, and killed; against whom Governor Boggs of Missouri, in 1838, signed an extermination order, and who were eventually driven outside the then-existing border of the United States, I understand this well. While the recent series of church arsons have destroyed houses of worship across our Nation, serving people of different faiths and different races, the largest number of burnings have involved identifiably black churches. Many have been small churches, located in rural areas, which have existed for generations. Historically, churches have served a special role in the black community, serving not merely as places of weekly worship, but as the spiritual and cultural centers of their communities. The unique place occupied by black churches in lives of their parishioners, and in the history of the black community and of our country, generation after generation, intensifies the pain and loss felt by a community victimized by this loathsome type of crime. I am pleased to note that this legislation will include a 6-year reauthorization of the Hate Crime Statistics Act, which I sponsored together with my good friend Senator Simon. The collection of data on crimes, including arson, motivated by racial, religious, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnic bias can help alert local communities and their law enforcement agencies to any pattern of hate crimes in their neighborhoods, and can help alert Federal law enforcement agencies to patterns or types of hate crimes, such as attacks on houses of worship, enabling law enforcement to respond to such crimes more quickly and efficiently, before they spread like a plague across our Nation. I am gratified by the response of the American people to these crimes; that so many private citizens and organizations are pitching in to help rebuild these churches. We live in a free and good society, and we have made progress in tolerance and in assuring protection of the rights of persons who belong to minority racial, ethnic, and religious groups. We are, however, not yet done. Today, with this legislation, we take another step forward. I wish to commend my distinguished colleagues, Senator Faircloth and Senator Kennedy, for their work on this bill. The very fact that these two Senators, of different parties and such differing political beliefs on so many other issues, have worked together so effectively to pass this legislation, sends a loud and clear message to all Americans of our resolute and complete condemnation of these reprehensible crimes, and our determination that the perpetrators be brought to justice.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me reiterate: in my view, this violation of fundamental choice and freedom of speech is compounded by the fact that labor unions do not even disclose their soft money contributions, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. That $35 million which we have all been reading about in the newspapers is really nothing. It is almost a wash compared to what they really spend. The unions pull in somewhere, it is estimated, around $4 to $6 billion a year, and up to 85 percent of that money, according to some estimates, is used for political purposes on local, State and Federal levels. The Supreme Court, in 1988, in Beck versus Communications Workers of America, declared that workers were entitled to know how much of their dues were being directed to political uses and to receive a refund for that portion of dues paid. I think a brief description of the Beck case is useful. Harry Beck was a telephone company technician working for the Bell Telephone System. He was not a member of the Communications Workers of America, but was required to pay agency fees to the union under the labor contract it negotiated with American Telephone & Telegraph Co. In June 1976, 20 employees, including Mr. Beck, initiated a suit challenging the CWA's use of their agency fees for purposes other than collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. Specifically, Mr. Beck and his coworkers alleged that the expenditure of their fees on activities such as organizing the employees of other employers, lobbying for legislation, and participating in political events violated the union's duty of fair representation and section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Beck and other objecting employees had a right to a refund from the union for the portion of their fees being used for political and other noncollective bargaining or representational purposes. This decision was, of course, significant for its holding that unions in the private sector are not permitted, over the objections of employees such as Mr. Beck, to expand funds collected from them for political and other activities unrelated to collective bargaining. In that regard, the Beck decision was a logical and reasoned follow-on to prior Supreme Court cases regarding the rights of employees covered by the Railway Labor Act to object to that portion of their dues or fees expended for noncollective bargaining purposes. See Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961) and Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U.S. 435 (1984). The Beck decision was significant in its affirmation (1) that the Federal courts properly exercised jurisdiction over such cases as a violation of the unions' duty of fair representation and, (2) that such union conduct was also prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act, enforcement of which is charged to the National Labor Relations Board. The rest of the system really is this. Regardless of what the court ruled--and it took some 8 years before the NLRB even got around to issuing its first ruling on a Beck-related case in 1995--all of the burden is being placed on the employee instead of on the union. For an employee to be able to withdraw his or her dues and to require disclosure, the employee has to go to court, file a claim before the NLRB, and/or has to go through all kinds of procedural maneuvers, and basically has to resign from the union and lose all of that employee's democratic rights to vote for or against strikes, for or against contract ratification, et cetera. In the end, the employee is basically out of a lot of money, out of his power of representation, and out of his right to vote. Why? Simply because one employee, pitted against a powerful union, has sought a voice in how his or her union dues is being spent for political purposes. I do not see how we can consider campaign finance reform without correcting this injustice. Nothing should be a more fundamental American right than political expression. Those Americans whose union dues are diverted for political purposes--without disclosure and without an adequate rebate system-- have been treated as second-class citizens. The NLRB has not only failed to implement the Beck decision, but the executive order issued by President Bush was rescinded during President Clinton's first days in office. That is amazing to me. If we want true campaign finance reform, why would we not clarify this injustice to individual workers all over America? What is even more amazing to me is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have fought any attempt to deal with this issue. Several years ago, I oferred a simple and straightforward amendment to campaign finance reform that would merely have required that unions disclose to dues paying members how their dues money is being spent. It was defeated. It is about time that we realize that mega-labor unions are among the biggest--they are the biggest--special interests in the electoral system, and that their political capital was not always given away freely. Unless this issue can be addressed, I do not see how we can call this campaign finance reform. It is more a continuation of campaign finance coercion. Employees have a right to know how much of their moneys are used for partisan political activities with which they disagree. That is what the Supreme Court said, and that ought to be enforced. This bill will do nothing about that. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have.